vroniplagwikiaorg_de-20200216-history
Mmu/Befunde
Findings * Problematic text parallels can be found in the following chapters (state of analysis: 22-02-2016): :*'1. INTRODUCTION' ::*1.1. Historical overview (p. 4-8): pages 4, 6, 7, 8 ::*1.2. Array – CGH Methodologies (p. 8-9): pages 8, 9 – completely ::*1.3. Clinical utility of array-CGH :::*1.3.1. Discovering new syndromes (p. 10): page 10 – (literally) :::*1.3.2. Expanding the phenotypic spectrum of known syndrome (p. 10): page 10 :::*1.3.3. Identifying the reciprocal products of known abnormalities (p. 11): page 11 :::*1.3.4. Identifying the genomic lesions in known conditions (p. 11): page 11 :::*1.3.5. Increasing the frequency of copy number variations across the genome (p. 12): page 12 ::*1.4. Copy number variation (CNVs) (p. 13): page 13 ::*1.5. Copy number variation and phenotypic variability (p. 14): page 14 – completely (excl. last sentence) ::*1.6. Reciprocal duplication of the Miller-Dieker region (p. 15-16): page 15 ::*1.7. Microdeletion and microduplication in 16p11.2 (p. 16): page 16 ::*1.9. Phenotype variability in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (p. 17-18): pages 17, 18 :*'3. MATERIALS AND METHODS' ::*3.1. Patients collection (p. 23): page 23 – completely ::*3.2. Array-based CGH :::*3.2.1. Samples preparation (p. 23): page 23 – completely :::*3.2.2. Human oligonucleotides array (p. 23-24): pages 23, 24 – completely ::*3.3 Real-time quantitative PCR (p. 25): page 25 – (literally) ::*3.4 Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) (p. 25-26): pages 25, 26 – (literally) :*'4. RESULTS' ::*4.1. Reciprocal duplication of known deletion syndrome (p. 28-45): pages 31, 33, 34, 35, 35 ::*4.3. Microdeletion and microduplication in 10q11.22 (p. 56-69): pages 57, 58, 66 ::*4.4. Microdeletion unmasking recessive phenotype (p. 70-83): pages 71, 72, 81 :*'5. DISCUSSION' (p. 84-90): pages 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 :*'6. CONCLUSIONS and FUTURE PERSPECTIVES' (p. 91-93): pages 92, 93. Prominent sources * Papa (2010), Katzaki (2009): There are extensive text parallels with two dissertations handed in at the same department. Both are not mentioned anywhere * Philip and Bassett (2011): The paper is not mentioned anywhere, but is the source of substantial text parallels. Prominent fragments * Fragment 072 01: Almost an entire page in the results section can also be found in a paper that is not mentioned in the entire thesis. * Fragment 088 12: A passage in the discussion section can also be found in a paper that is not mentioned in the thesis anywhere. Other observations * The supervisor of the thesis Prof. Alessandra Renieri has also been the supervisor of the theses Katzaki (2009) and Papa (2010). She could have spotted the extensive text parallels that exist between the thesis under review and these two sources. * Several pages of the dissertation have been left blank (pp. 19, 22, 27, 28, 46, 56, 70, 84, 91). They have been excluded from the overview and the summary statistics. Statistics Illustration The following chart illustrates the amount and the distribution of the text parallel findings. The colours show the type of plagiarism diagnosed: * grau="Komplettplagiat" (copy & paste): the source of the text parallel is not given, the copy is verbatim. * rot="Verschleierung" (disguised plagiarism): the source of the text parallel is not given, the copied text will be somewhat modified. * gelb="Bauernopfer" (pawn sacrifice): the source of the text parallel is mentioned, but the extent and/or the closeness of the copy to the source is not made clear by the reference. 552px|650px (state of analysis: 22-02-2016) Kategorie:Mmu Kategorie:Befunde